Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nice try, but all "pro-gun advocates" do what I call the gun monkey shuffle...."what if"-ism. Let's stay on target.
You're saying that banning the sale of future AR-15 (style) weapons is denying you freedom of choice. Newsflash; you've been living with limited choice on every aspect of your life since you were born (assuming you were born here). When a product goes on the open market, it has to be evaluated as to it's level of safety for the average consumer (i.e., consumer protection). That is why there is a constant tussle regarding foodstuffs and drugs with the federal and private monitoring/evaluation agencies. Some products are taken off market despite some people comfortable with the risks of using them. Same with tools and appliances and the like. This is why seat belts and air bags are mandatory in the sale of ANY car in the U.S.A. (and I do remember a big fight about that ... with people saying things parallel to what you say here). But as with guns, the average consumer has more than enough alternative choices to suit their needs. And being the litigious society we are, the manufacturers (non weapon ones, anyway) would rather err on the side of caution rather than being sued by someone who chose a product with noted potential danger and then got hurt.
Now we can't eliminate/ban all guns from the civilian population...nor should we, as we are a diversified society STILL dealing with cast, class, race, religious and ethnic disagreements....hell, people are STILL bitching about the Civil War, not to mention all the noise about abortion & evolution vs. creationism. And we are a competitive society with finite resources and opportunities. So self protection can be determined necessary by the individual beyond local/federal law enforcement.
That being said, you have to remember that self protection goes both ways. I don't mind you having a handgun or rifle for home protection, but I'd be nervous if you had a mounted .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a roof or landing of your house. And guess what? It's against to law to have such a thing, as it is viewed as a military assault weapon. Yes, any gun can be "called" an assault weapon or used by a DESIGNATED MILITIA (if the state militia rules deem such), so a "degree " of which has to be established. Now, there's a boat load of weapons that may not due exactly what the AR-15 can do, BUT they sure as hell can kill human beings just as dead....the AR-15's just give the rank amateur an edge in a combat or riot or assault situation.
What has been PROVEN is that the AR-15 style weapons do exactly that....make schmoes like me a more effective killer when assaulting a crowd. I'm sure there are some cases out there where this weapon was successfully used for self/home defense....but I bet you they are far and few between in comparison to the mass shootings of the last 25 years. And let's not forget...when these weapons were banned, crime didn't go off the charts and there wasn't a subsequent clamor for these specific weapons to save the nation. Nope, didn't happen. What DID happen was that they became the weapon of choice for mass shooters when back on the open market.
So nobody is being "punished" by a ban on particular weapons, as the record shows. But people could be spared. I think you can live with that. I know I can.
So you really have no logical or factual rebuttal to my previous post (which I've re-established here for the reading audience) other than act like some stupid MAGA troll ... which you are not, EXEPT when it comes to the gun control issue.
And how does this change the FACT of all the victims in the last 25 years of assault weapons formerly banned? Their surviving families really don't give a damn about your chart.
